Joschka Fischer was German Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor from 1998-2005, a term marked by Germany's strong support for NATO's intervention in Kosovo in 1999, followed by its opposition to the war in Iraq. Fischer entered electoral politics after participating in the anti-establishment protests of the 1960s and 1970s, and played a key role in founding Germany's Green Party, which he led for almost two decades.

Joschka Fischer is following the European elections in May 2019 closely. Should Eurosceptic parties make significant inroads into the European parliament, it could usher in “an abrupt break from the past.” As new presidents of the European Commission, the European Council, and the European Central Bank will be appointed, and a new High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy chosen, their gains would have an impact on the distribution of power within the EU. According to the author, Europe is at a turning point, with its values being challenged within and beyond its borders. Next year’s parliamentary elections will have “far-reaching implications” for the future of Europe’s democracy in a fast-changing world. “Recent developments in a number of member states have challenged foundational EU principles such as the rule of law and the separation of powers. These democratic institutions, as well as questions of European solidarity and sovereignty, will all effectively be on the ballot.”Identity politics has become the selling point of populists and nationalists, who tap into ordinary people’s fear of the unknown, or their aversion to cultural, ethnic, racial, religious diversity. While there is nothing wrong with preserving European way of life and a European identity, we must also defend liberal democracy, the rule of law, and the EU values. With Europe’s mainstream parties facing a challenge from Eurosceptic populists and right-wing nationalists, the 2019 elections are a matter of their political survival. The centre-right European People’s party (EPP), which includes the parties of Angela Merkel and Hungary’s Viktor Orban, is currently the largest party. The Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) comes second. The European Parliament will shrink from 751 to 705 MEPs when Britain leaves the EU in March 2019. A proposed re-distribution of seats will also place 46 of the 73 seats in a reserve, which will be allocated to new countries joining the EU in the future. The remaining 27 seats will be re-distributed among the 14 EU countries that are slightly under-represented. Sir Julian King, the European commissioner for security, has previously called on the EU to redouble its efforts to debunk “pro-Kremlin disinformation” ahead of the 2019 European elections. Putin hopes to achieve his goal – his useful idiots on the far-left and the far- right are seeking to dismantle the EU – the bloc is already grappling with Brexit and Italy’s mounting debt crisis. The author says, Trump’s recent withdrawal from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia raises the threat of a renewed arms race. The author says, pro-EU parties “must make Europe’s place in the world a central issue of the parliamentary election campaign; otherwise, they will suffer a shattering defeat at the hands of the new nationalists.” We can not afford to give up on a liberal democratic Europe, which is attuned to the notion of an open society. The other alternative would be a fortress-minded, illiberal and intolerant Europe, in which nationalists long for the past, while dreading the future. Only by defending the EU, will we be able to hold on to our sovereignty, while “self-inflicted disunity” would render us ever more “dependent on other powers.”

The unresolved challenges of the euro, plus those insane “Sovereign Debt Privileges”, which allow banks to hold European Sovereign Debt denominated in de facto non-domestic euros, against zero capital, could/will break the European Union… ands much more https://teawithft.blogspot.com/2018/10/eu-authorities-assigning-italy-like.html

May I suggest that this "day of reckoning" is coming to the EU, regardless.

EU transmogrified itself from a simple "trade union" into a para-government in which sovereign countries are "merely states." Many have openly spoken of a "United States of Europe," with its capitol in "Brussels, DC." But this is not – and never will be – what Europe is or will become.

I believe that the EU will be forced to partially re-invent itself, and probably to divest itself of authority and responsibility that it now has. It must become smaller, more focused, and generally more successful at accomplishing the aims that it keeps for itself in its newly-imagined form.

"Union" is fundamentally important, but so, I believe, is "nationalism." Your country is your own, and it's still sovereign, even if it has willingly abdicated some of its authority to some collective. The goal is greater cooperation, but cooperation, nonetheless. The collective does not have authority except what has been willingly ceded to it by its members; not the other way around.

I sincerely believe that Mr. Trump was making a very fundamental point when he said that the foundation principle in any negotiation should always be, "<My-Country> First!" If everyone goes into a negotiating room with that principle held simultaneously, the negotiations will of course be more raucous, but the emerging agreement will be much better. "It works." Everyone's pulling in their own direction, pulling the agreement away from terms that are deleterious to them, their point of view, and their self-interests. And, all of them are doing this at the same time. They ALL understood that "these are the terms of engagement" as they walked into that room, and they're duty-bound to walk out with a successful agreement. Somehow.

Finance, in my opinion, is EU's most-serious mistake. Today, it represents "oxen unequally yoked together." While "the Euro" is a fundamental symbol of the entire Union, I believe that members will start printing their own currencies again. Paris and, say, Lichtenstein, cannot reasonably be together under just one roof as though the Euro was a hat that could be made to comfortably fit every head.

"Worse still, US President Donald Trump’s recent decision to withdraw the US from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia raises the threat of a renewed arms race." Why does the EU have no position on this issue but behaves like a colony?

WHY GLASSHOUSES MUST NOT PELT STONESResurgence of Nationalism can be brushed aside in Brussels.But in Berlin Paris Rome Madrid - Democracy is always local.Abandoning Sovereignty seemingly does not have democratic roots.With Britain ceasing to remain the One escape from Euroland Meltdown.With Trump threatening cessation of freeloading @ NATO.The responsibilities of Brussels are likely to multiply megafold.The Anglosphere Twins sick and tired of underwriting European goals.The sustained depopulation of The Regions of Europe seems relentless.Resurgence of Regions into Nations perhaps a consequence.Especially when linguistic jingoism has been a bane in Europe's ambitions.One Language perhaps potentially was the One panacea, now precluded.English perhaps the One Language that Europe needed, now precluded.Unless Russian comes to the rescue or Arabic & Mandarin.

'Abandoning sovereignty' They do not just want to abandon it, they want to transfer sovereign rights to supra-national agencies, and also to specific posts like a 'Finance Minister', who are not elected, cannot be voted our, are under no parliamentary control and accountability - cannot even be taken to court for their official machinations. It becomes an institutional dictatorship of political appointees of 27 countries.

My synthesis of your three comments here is that the EU is a representative of the Dark Globalization, where power has been globalized away from nations, being a degeneration of Margaret Thatcher's narrative "There Is No Alternative" to Neoliberalism central government PLAN in The Wealth of Nations since then. Thus the UK, Italy and others into DeGlobalization have not sustainable central government PLAN either. This is what’s known as Marketing (actually strategic) Myopia. Any such PLAN has antisystemic (contrary to sustainable systems) bias.

I suggested in my first comment here that the whole world needs a decentralizing government VISION (not a PLAN) on The Wealth of Globalization, which is available for constructive critique in order to add evidence from others to the draft article "A neither #Brexit, nor #Bremain, #EU28 wide referendum scenario ( https://www.wikitribune.com/article/91771/ ) to become the first news on the VISION in the WikiTribune startup.

Mr. Fischer knows, or at least should know, that the German Constitutional Court (BVerfG) has ruled, in its verdict to the Lisbon Treaty, that the so-called EU-Parliament is not a fair representation of the European peoples. Aside from niceties of constitutional law, it is obvious that it cannot be. The is no 'European people', with 21 languages, there is no European public, there is no such a thing as a transnational democratic legitimacy, there is no such a thing as transnational parliamentary control and accountability. There is no transnational rule of law and no transnational welfare state. The so-called EU-Parliament is not a real parliament. It is an assembly filled with cronies, grossly overpaid, of national party leader and national executives. There maybe a group of honest idealists, but the vast majority of 751 MEPs is a group of busy-buddies and gourmet food and champagne drinking expense account artists. The political parties love the EU-Parliament as a gravy train for their closest friends and for often borderline illegal party financing. The present constitutional and institutional set-up of the EU is in fact an 'Institutional Dictatorship', were all relevant post are filled by national leaders, all are unelected and nobody can be voted down. There is no 'democratic deficit', there is no democracy at all. The EU could well be repaired. But if nobody does it, it will erode and decay from its unresolvable internal conflicts.

Echoing my earlier comment – "the EU in its present form is attempting to be too much, and it's not doing a good job of it." Commonality is important, but so, fundamentally, is nationalism. "Globalism" is an ideal, but not a good one – it turns out to be naturally exploitative in practice. It asks us to give away authority that we need to keep to ourselves, no matter where in the world we are situated. The concepts of "national identity" and "sovereignty" are, as it turns out, very important. This is what keeps each nation focused on its own people and its own interests, and to negotiate from a position of strength. We must not forsake that.

"So, we go back to being the ancient, sovereign nations that we all still are." The ideal of "United States of Europe" is not a good one and can't be realized; nor should it be. There's a place for "European Union" and there is value in it, but it's a much smaller and more-focused place that does not attempt to fully supersede either the lawmaking or the finances, or especially the sovereignty, of its member NATIONS. Part of the EU is going to have to go back to the drawing board. It's going to have to reinvent itself as a smaller organization, less ambitious, and better at doing what it continues to set out to do. To recognize what is working well and to keep those things, but to divest itself of responsibilities that are not. "Lessons learned." "EU version 2.0."

There is no solution available under The Wealth of Nations centralization whose useful life was extended by the evidence of Margaret Thatcher;s TINA ("There Is No Alternative" - to Neoliberalism) and Ronald Reagan's Washington Consensus. The Consensus of 2009 increased the centralization even more with the Euro. That's the old independence mindset which correspond to the Simplistic Globalization Model (that divides Europe into Globalization and antiglobalization, which I have coined as Dark Globalization and DeGlobalization) which is very close to the picture in the comments given by BERNHARD KOPP.

There is an alternative under The Wealth of Globalization VISION of decentralization that follows the Swiss model of minimalists government all the way to the global level. To start the new interdependence mindset of the Updated Conceptual Globalization Model that adds the Bright Globalization for The Wealth of Globalization as a Big Shift in direction that will help create the Systemic Civilization. One first step in that direction, is given in the draft of the WikiTribune story "A neither #Brexit, nor #Bremain, #EU28 wide referendum scenario ( https://www.wikitribune.com/article/91771/ )." Please help the draft become the article Europe needs to unite itself.

Please read carefully the introduction: “This is about the opportunity of a Government Decentralization Referendum on the European Union for the people that are asking for a Second (Centralization) Referendum in the UK. It is also about the people that don’t want such a referendum, who think the British people have decided to leave…What’s happening is a Brexit myopia “Fact of Life,” similar to the Marketing myopia described in Wikipedia.”

The referendum is not on the UK. It is a referendum in the European Union. The proposed referendum on the UK called for the “People’s vote” is a Centralization referendum, not the Decentralization referendum that I suggest.

The rhetoric is deliberately cutting. The so-called EU-Parliament spends tons of money to make people believe that they serve the population while they serve themselves and, at best, those who have nominated them to the party lists. Evidence in the reality. The so-called EU-Parliament was created out of the illusionary idea that it should be the first chamber of legislation, with the EU-Commission as central government. It was illusionary for the original six members, and it is even more illusionary for the very diverse group of EU-27. I am convinced that the EU can only serve its purpose as a confederation of sovereign nations, since no country can and will push aside its national identity and historic experience. We need a different constitutional set-up.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.